Posted on 10/26/2018 4:40:51 AM PDT by foreverfree
We FReepers complain about the Uniparty. Do other democracies have a uniparty or in the UK, e.g., do the the Tories and Labourites manage to avoid overlapping ideologies?
ff
Look at the recent Swedish election. The Swedish Democrats (anti-immigrants) won 20% of the vote, with the rest being split evenly between the “right” and the “left”. The “right” coalition could rule if they allowed the SD into their coalition, but the “moderates” refuse to allow it. So the “left” coalition looks like they will form a minority government. Something similar happened in Slovenia last year.
What defines a “UniParty”, is the determination that outsiders can never be allowed to get any power, even if it means that your theoretical “opponents” rule.
The ruling parties in a “uniparty state” maintain the pretense of diversity of opinion, only up to the point of allowing real change.
Not the imposition of an income tax not apportioned among the states?
If “universal suffrage” were any measure, we would have never gotten Trump.
I’ve never seen a clear delineation between socialist and communist. To me a socialist is just not quite as committed.
They’re probably communists but don’t want to admit it.
Corbyn is a PLO member.
Uniparty?
Dows that mean ‘statism’?
The so-called “Conservative Party” in Canada is about where the Democrats were under Bill Clinton, in terms of fiscal and foreign policy. They cave in on social issues, multiculturalism, and all the other “isms” being pushed by the left. The Liberal Party, which used be considered centrist, is now very close to the Democrat Party in being soft on crime, soft on terrorism, open borders, anti-American, high taxes and social spending, and mindlessly pushing a job killing “green” agenda. Previously the Canadian left was occupied by the NDP, but much of their vote has drifted to the Liberals and the Green Party.
Should the Conservatives unseat Trudeau in 2019, they will be fiscally more responsible, but will still be 100% in favour of the socialist healthcare monopoly, abortion, the homosexual and trans qxyz agenda (out of cowardice, not conviction). They will likely do something to try to stem the tide of fake refugees coming across the US border, but will continue to permit too much immigration.
I was wondering the same thing. Maybe “democracies” is sloppy thinking, or a typo. Because we certainly are *not* a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic.
No, we are a democracy. Republic is a subset of democracy, not a sui generis.
Not sure how you can defend that belief. But you’re free to hold it.
Federalist Papers #10 mentions both a democracy and a republic, and clearly states that there’s a difference between the two.
John Adams wrote that a democracy is a tyranny against those in the minority.
You could kinda say we’re a “representative democracy,” in that we’ve elected people to represent our will. But even then, we are more a republic, bound to the Constitution and laws, and not bound to the whims of the democratic majority.
But whatever.
ff
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.